look at how we deal with periods of time. at the globe, the decade of rampant materialism and gorbymania was called the 1980s, but at the new york times they say the 1980`s. since there is nothing omitted here and no suggestion of possession, i can`t see why the times carries on in this way. the reasoning of the times` word columnist, william safire, is that the apostrophe is used to form the plurals of numbers and letters, and so there.mr. safire compares p`s and q`s, and the phrase dressed to the nine`s, but to my mind the truth is not quite so self-evident. if one rule of writing is to keep punctuation to a minimum, then i think that 1980s, a natural looking plural, is much nicer than 1980`s. accept 1980`s and you start referring to the smith`s or the delegation of mp`s.
but what about p`s and q`s? the reason we don`t mind them at the globe is that individual letters are easier to see as individual letters, uncluttered by a neighbouring s. and here`s where we get unsystematic. turn those letters into capitals and suddenly they`re as and bs and mps and vips, comprehensible and a little more elegant without the apostrophe. this kind of plural is made easier when you have left out the periods between letters, as is more and more the case with modern style.
but still there is confusion. for every st. andrew`s, there is a st. andrews, where long use has banished the apostrophe and made the s part of the name. st. catharines, st. marys, st. davids, canada is full of slights to punctuation. the canadian teachers` federation is doing its best to keep the apostrophe alive, but what can they do against the massed forces of the canadian swine breeders association and the teamsters union? we are turning away from the apostrophe. (the globe and mail, march 23, 1991. reprinted by permission.)